I think Sodapop, our retired lubrication engineer, has the best advice. I think a low viscosity oil like "Wahl hair clipper" oil would also work well. You can purchase a lifetime supply (4 ounces) for under $5 bucks at any beauty supply shop.

Interesting. I once had someone explain the exact same concept to me at my Summer job on the floor of a very blue-collar glass factory. It seems wisdom is wherever you find it.

Beautiful shots. Beautiful birdies. Who is that gorgeous third bird?

I use Auto-ISO about 50% of the time, but I have my camera set to not exceed a maximum Auto-ISO of 1600. My particular camera shows little or no noise up to almost 6400, which I may occasionally have to use in a pinch or else forego getting the shot, but I prefer to stay below 1600 when on Auto-ISO.

The other 50% of the time and especially for highly desired shots, I keep ISO set to 200. During the old film days, I used mostly ASA 200 film for that extra stop of exposure without losing clarity or contrast in the final image. If your digital camera's sensor/processor can push the ISO setting when needed and still deliver a "clean" image, I see no problem with using Auto-ISO within reasonable limits. Again, for high detail or precision work, I suggest using the lowest ISO your camera "naturally" provides (i.e., no electronic trickery) usually100 or 200, but when shooting mainly for your own enjoyment, a moderately "high" Auto-ISO is convenient and perfectly acceptable. Just my personal opinion though.

I have a similar story too. About 35 years ago I was shooting around the sunset hour. I wanted a completely unadulterated image so I temporarily removed the UV filter from my Nikkor AI-S 80-200 mm f/4 which was tripod mounted. Somehow, don't ask me how, the sturdy tripod tipped over and my camera and lens went face first onto the little stones under it. I didn't even want to look but when I did, there was a small chip on the front element about one-third of the way from the edge. I was heartbroken. Long story short, fortunately that chip never seemed to have any adverse effect on that lens' capabilities, but I have never removed a protective filter from any lens since that night. BTW, I still have and use that indestructible Nikkor to this day, chip and all.

The flowers and other plant life in the gardens around the Falls are always beautiful in the Spring and Summer. I've always wondered if this was because of all the moisture the Falls puts into the surrounding air. Your photo is beautiful as well.

It could be your protective front filter or it might be the numerous lens elements in your long, long zoom. Sometimes just finding the correct angle of attack can eliminate this type of ghosting. I hope it's just your filter.

Where are you? Canada? Alaska?

Still a very nice and pleasing shot you got.

I've been throwing a few silica desiccant packets into my protective lens bags for about 30 years now. I can't honestly say if they help or not, but I've never had a condensation or fungus problem with any lens I've ever owned. Actually, I stopped changing them out about 10 or 12 years ago and still have never experienced any problems so my guess would be that any water vapor adsorption they provide is probably miniscule but also harmless (as long as they don't tear open which has also never happened to me).

I suppose their effectiveness could be "tested" by also using those little cobalt chloride impregnated "humidity indicator disks" which are blue when dry and turn pink when humidity is present.

I like it. You made the bending trees and 'pointy' sky in the center look like a wedding chapel. Very nice.

Wow, hardly any votes for #1. I definitely prefer #1 because it gives me the sense that I am speeding down that sloping, curvy road. The decapitated mountains even enhance the feeling of 'falling' though another millimeter of sky wouldn't have hurt that sensation.

The longer portion of straight roadway and the large expanse of sky in #2 just 'feels' a little flat or stationary to me.

I actually like both shots but #1 has an tacit element of action to it (like skiing downhill) while #2 looks more like a typical landscape shot.

Wow, hardly any votes for #1. I definitely prefer #1 because it gives me the sense that I am speeding down that sloping, curvy road. The decapitated mountains even enhance the feeling of 'falling' though another millimeter of sky wouldn't have hurt that sensation.

The longer portion of straight roadway and the large expanse of sky in #2 just 'feels' a little flat or stationary to me.

I actually like both shots but #1 has an tacit element of action to it (like skiing downhill) while #2 looks more like a typical landscape shot.

I also think you could better capture this perspective shot from a somewhat higher angle thereby minimizing or even eliminating the building in the background, but I'm guessing that twelve feet up might be too high. Four to six feet might be enough to do it.

Also, if you took the same shot from the opposite end (standing in front of the building) what would then be in the background? Would it, if something is there, be smaller or easier to defocus?

Let us see the re-shoots you come up with.

The D700 is an exceptional camera even at 12 mp. It is almost legendary in terms of the superb image quality it produces. I once read a 'scientific' explanation about why this so. Keeping it simple, the surface area of each pixel on its sensor comes it at over 80 square microns, one of the highest individual pixel areas of all 'commonly' used high-end sensors. I think even the D710 dropped to less than half that area per pixel on its newer, higher megapixel sensor. That was the explanation given as to why the images produced by the D700 are considered so stunning, even today.

If it were mine, I would keep it forever.